Queer Discourse

Alexander and Wallace discuss the needed changes regarding LGBT discourse. They explain that while it is a start to address the negative factors, such as homophobia, this does not undermine our heterosexual society. The suggestions they offer are to challenge heteronormative privilege, consider how we are participants in dominative heteronormative discourse, and to avoid merely limited inclusion in discourse.

The ideas of Alexander and Wallace are not unlike those of the feminist theorists, Weedon and Ang who suggest changing the discourse to fit the topic. Like Weedon who stemmed from Foucalt and other poststructuralists, Alexander and White suggest a way of looking at discourse that emphasizes its ability to change, unlike the fixed definitions of structuralists Barthes, Levi-Strauss and Saussure.

Alexander and Wallace present a few questions at the end of their essay. They suggest we should ask why we divide ourselves into "gay and straight," "male and female," etc. While not an inherently bad question to ask, I got the idea that they found something wrong with this division that was hard for me to agree with. Certainly dividing into groups and thinking less of the "other" is immoral. However, it is natural to classify people into groups, to create categorical descriptions. It allows us to create discourse surrounding the subject and shows that we are not all the same. It would be unreasonable not to classify people. That said, I agree that the idea that one of the groups in each pair shouldn't become the dominant one and that we should be able to speak in an inclusive way as Alexander and Wallace suggest.

Poststructuralism's Influence on Feminism

Weedon discusses the influences of poststructuralism on the way we talk about feminism. She elaborates on the importance of language, subjectivity and discourse within the context of feminism. She explains that not all poststructuralist lens are appropriate for feminism, Foucalt's works especially well due to its addressing of history, gender, class and race. She explains that the language used provides a social organization for feminism. This allows us to see that the term gender is "socially produced." This is important to see, because Saussure's theory did not allow for multiple meanings of gender, despite it's necessity. By showing the evolution of structuralism, to post-structuralism, she explains that the word 'woman' is able to contain several meanings. The subjectivity Weedon explains, refers to "conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions of the individual… and her ways of understanding her relation to the world." This subjectivity provides room for discourse and allows the way we talk about feminism to change and create new meanings.

Weedon's theories can certainly be seen to spawn from Foucault, as she explicitly states; however we can also see that she takes ideas from Bazerman. This is very important for Weedon's ideas of discourse and her discussion of language's effect on social organization. In discussing subjectivity, it is not hard to relate Zizek and Freud. They continually discuss the way we must repress our desires and Weedon's discussion of the conscious and unconscious thoughts.

Comparing Weedon to previous theorists, her ideas are certainly more relatable. She explains the relevance in a way not always present with the others. I was particularly intrigued about her discussion of gender. Despite being open-minded and accepting, I have a hard time actually understanding the way gender is presented in our society today. Coming from a background of science and logic, it is natural for me to think of the biological definition of gender we have always been taught. However, Weedon discusses this in a way I had not previously heard. In contrast to my typical thoughts black and white, Weedon explains that it can have multiple meanings and has changed over time. Her explanation is important because, sometimes, we are used to seeing a definition we feel comfortable with and don't realize others even exist. Not just regarding gender, this can be true for many of words we come across, which, I think, becomes her point for language as discourse regarding feminism.

Hollywood and High School Horrors

The Movie Blog reviews a movie called The Conjuring. In doing so, it comments on our expectations of horror movies and that this is movie would have been good, had it not relied on horror conventions halfway through.

The second article, which was from Bitch Magazine, discusses the changes that have occurred in the way sex education is presented to teenagers. They also point at that this has impacted the number of teen pregnancies, which is now lower due to the changes in sex ed. The new way of presenting it is less based around abstinence only and, instead, seeks to give factual information that does not shame students and does make them feel empowered to make their own choices and it lets their opinions be heard. These changes reflect the need in our society for teenagers to be able to feel responsible and respected. They do not want to be told not to do something because it is wrong, they want to be told why it is wrong so they can choose whether or not to do it.

Considering the sex ed article, I think Arnold would be in support of these ideas. This is a way to educate the population, but instead of revolting, it is preventing unplanned pregnancies. They are two different concepts, but the ideas can be seen as parallels. I also think Bazerman and Greene can relate well to this. Greene thinks new information should be entered into the conversation, while Bazerman would see the new form of education as a way to influence other aspects which is the goal of this education. The movie review reflects the ideas reflected in Levisism; culture is being commercialized and the quality is reduced. As The Movie Blog explains, The Conjuring started off as unique and thoughtful but begin to dissipate in quality as it resorted to typical Hollywood techniques. This is reflective of the way the movie industry would prefer to use a formula rather than be creative.

I found the article about sex ed very informative. I had not heard of any of these changes taking place. I did become concerned at the part where it says not to suggest teen pregnancy is bad thing and that if a teen wants to become pregnant, that they should feel supported. This is quite radical thinking that is very difficult to agree with. In these classes, are they taught how to support a child if they choose to have one? Are they sure their boyfriend will be supportive? I just find it hard to believe that a teenager would ever be ready to choose to become pregnant and I don't think this should be taught. However, the rest of the ideas were grounded in a good logic and I do support better education.

Creating Meaning Within Context

Foucault discusses the many meanings of power and how we need to understand which context it is being used in in order to truly understand the meaning. This becomes a detailed example of Storey's introduction to Foucault in which he explains that discourse gives a subject meaning rather than acting only as an example of it. So, Foucault's examples of powerr are not necessary representations of power, but ways in which power is given meaning. In regards to this, he also talks about sexuality in relation to power and gives several rules for how we can think about this. 

Foucault's views fall into post-structuralism, along with Derrida. Unlike Barthes, Levi-Strauss and Saussure who hold structuralist beliefs. This means they find meaning within structure and take an analytical approach to understanding texts. Saussure begin this movement by explaining the dependence of langue, system of a language and parole, usage of a language, on one another. These influenced those after him within structuralism, but Derrida and Foucault begin to differ from this analytical view. Rather, they believed meaning was always changing and couldn't be placed into a structure. They considered texts "inseperable from the active process of its many readings." This is much like Greene's view who believed conversations are always changing and the writings at any time are always furthering them and should be adding something new. 

I found structuralism much easier to agree with, because it is easy to see Saussare's belief of the interconnectivity of the langue and parole while the more abstract views of Derrida aren't as clear. 

Are Our Sims Our Real Selves?

Since its release in 2000, The Sims have sold over 150 million copies. This includes three generations of the game with numerous expansions and custom content created for each iteration. In spite of its success, it's not hard to wonder why a game about living just as we do in our daily lives has become so popular? Why do we spend our time off of work or school just to make our virtual selves do the same activities? Certainly we have more imaginative desires than this. As someone who owns each version and has logged more hours than I wish to count, I often find myself wondering why I am so drawn into this world. There are some aspects that differ from reality, such as vampires, aliens and fairies, but our sims are also made to do mundane chores and work a 9-5 job. So, what keeps us playing this game? By using Freud's ideas of psychoanalysis, I believe we can come close to answering this question. 

PsychologyToday considers the factors that went into making the game and how they have influenced its popularity, while Gamesradar has listed "10 Reasons the Sims' World is Better Than the Real World." Reddit users also consider the factors in the Sims' gameplay that make it appealing. What they all appear to have in common, is that you have control. Some of the examples from Gamesradar are that there is a 0% unemployment rate, artists can easily become rich, your sim can easily gain money, and that you can easily alter your appearance. Not so easy in reality, right? PsychologyToday adds that you can design your dream home or you can remodel your current home. 





Some of the Reddit users have suggested more questionable ideas of fun, but what all of these sources demonstrate are the many options available. Freud suggests that our unconscious desires are represented in our dreams, because we are unable to act them out in society due to learned social constructs. However, The Sims bridges this gap. It makes doing unthinkable things totally acceptable. If you want to send your sim to go swimming and then take out the ladder and let it die, you can. If you want to humiliate another sim with no real recourse, you can. In The Sims 3, you can "woo-hoo" in a treehouse if you really want. These are all representations of some of the things Freud says we must repress, but this game lets you act them out in what feels like real life, except, of course, that you have total control over what happens. This is the other important part which makes the Sims so addictive and interesting. You can, essentially, become a god. This resolves some of the feelings Freud talks about in the Oedipus complex. He says we feel a loss of power and privilege. Well, The Sims gives us all the power we could want and the ultimate privileges. Sure, you can work for your money and be honest. But as Gamesradar suggests, theres nothing saying we can even get a job in reality, let alone the one we want. In the game you can become any profession, including making money as an artist. And, yes, still have money left over for food. You can also go the darker route and use cheat codes to gain as much money as you want and build the ultimate mansion. The point is, you have total control. Even though these things exist in reality, you likely don't have access to them. Even still, if you choose to make your sim a representation of yourself, as PsychologyToday suggests most people do, you can do everything you can in reality. You do not have to choose between them. So, we keep playing The Sims because it lets us act on our unconscious desires without being judged or coming up short on money. And most importantly, it gives us control over them. 

Reality and the Real

Zizek first discuss Zeno's paradoxes, then moves on to explain the real and reality in relation to literature which comes from the ideas of Freud and Lacan. Zeno's paradoxes describe that we can never truly reach what we are moving toward, that our needs change form as they become desires and, finally, that we can never cover a distance because we first have to go half of it, but before that we must cover a fourth of the distance, and this continues to shrink as we look at space. Thus, we never reach our end goal, because we must constantly set new ones. Zizek relates these ideas to concepts of fantasy, which Zeno excluded from his work. Zizek explains that fantasy teaches us to desire and acts as a blank canvas that our desires can be projected onto. This canvas, fantasy, actually becomes the reality because it depicts what we truly desire, while parallel to this is the real. While this seems strange for fantasy and reality to exist in close tangent to one another, Zizek explainst that this is considered 'normalcy.' It is when the two can no longer be seperated that we have entered into madness. 

Zizek elaborates on the ideas of Freud and Lacan. He holds similar views about desire as Freud explained, but furthers the concept by showing how it may apply to literature. Though, the ideas seem to conflict the mirror stage presented by Lacan. Lacan describes our learned understanding of reality in a way that doesn't seem to allow for the blank slate that Zizek describes. Zizek and Freud believe we start from scratch in considering our desires. Zizek's blank slate could certainly be seen as Freud's description of the id. Lacan seems to change this by added the mirror stage. The mirror reflects what we see. It is not a fresh start. 

I first had trouble understanding the difference between Zeno's first and third paradoxes, as they appear to coincide together. That said, I think that they are valid representations of the way we look at life. Perhaps not as he intended, but his third paradox becomes a way we can consider how we must constantly adapt. We are unable to reach our ultimate endpoint, because we change it along the way. I also struggled with the difference between 'real' and 'reality.' The way these words are typically used complicates the understanding of these philosphies. 

 

The Mirror Stage of Self-Understanding

Lacan brings the concept of the mirror stage into Freud's concept of psychoanalysis. It is the idea that before we have knowledge of the world, or can even put thoughts into words, we can look at ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves. This becomes one of our first concepts of the world which leads to further self-discovery. This allows people to create a relationship between themselves and their reality, a concept refered to as imago. This happens before society begins to tell us what to think. He ends by explaining that psychonalysis performed by professionals can only go so far, that individuals must take the next step in order to have true understanding. 

The ideas Lacan brings about give us another viewpoint in considering the societal concepts of culture. Relating to Marxism, the false consciousness portrayed in society is a constructed view that may not reflect our version of reality and the need to convince people to believe something that may not align with their internal desires, or the id. The mirror concept also relates to Laclou and Mouffe who suggests that objects do not have meaning without discourse. By looking at ourselves in the mirror stage, we are attributing meaning. 

This is an interesting view to look at because we can begin to wonder where our views end and the constructed views of society begin. We might also ask, at what point and by whom were those constructs created?